posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 08:52 AM
When asked the question, he should have given the standard response-without-an-answer, something to the effect of "I won't engage in that type of
speculation." But he made the ultimate mistake in politics: he was honest.
I don't see how this is engaging in "the politics of fear." Saying such is a knee-jerk reaction to someone with an (R) beside their name
mentioning a word mentioning a word that starts with a "t." Just as he was being honest, we should be honest as well. He did not say there would
be a terrorist attack, or say anything that both parties are not saying (both candidates say they can better protect America, but somehow it is only
fear-mongering when McCain does it. And to be certain, the politics of fear do not begin and end with an (R) mentioning terrorism). All he did was
give voice to what people already feel intuitively, however true or untrue it may be, but dare not give voice to.
Does anyone doubt that if there was another terrorist attack, it would provide a boost for the (R) candidate? The common perception is that
Republicans are strong on national security and the Democrats are not. So yes, such an event may help McCain; admitting that political-reality is a
far-cry from scare-mongering.
Of course, if there was such an attack, both parties would spin it to best benefit them.